Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Global warming is a crockFollow

#27 Dec 01 2006 at 1:18 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
But fhrugby, if you appraoch this from a purely economic standpoint, then the very nature of fossil fuels will make this greenhouse factor disappear or be markedly less in the next 100 years. I say this based on (once again, spurious) "scientific" evidence that fossil fuels stores were declining to the point of economic infeasability. In other words, extracting the oil that was left in the ground would be so costly as to make it unattractive to exploit.

Now, mind you, it's been said since the '70's that our remaining fossil fuel stocks are nearing their end and the year that they have been predicted to vanish keeps being pushed back, but still, there will come a day when it costs more to produce oil than to burn it.

Totem
#28 Dec 01 2006 at 1:21 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Again, I'm not convinced that the evidence is spurious but... meh.
That's okay, because if he tires you out then he doesn't have to prove it! Really, Joph. Totes is for fun. F-U-N. If you want meaningless debate with no supporting cites that is meant to bore you into surrender, PM gbaji.

Edited, Dec 1st 2006 3:23pm by Atomicflea
#29 Dec 01 2006 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Is this Ugly Animal Avatar month? I have this site to recommend to you.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#30 Dec 01 2006 at 1:27 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
/sniffs

I feel cheap and used now! So I'm only good for fun and giggles, eh? I'm not the serious relationship type you take home to mother, eh? Mine is the number scrawled on bathroom stalls that say, "For a good time call Totem!" eh?

Uh-huh.

Just for that slight I erased a well thought out and footnoted dissertation on The Unifying Theory. And I'm here to tell you it was Nobel Peace prize stuff. And you're never gonna read it. Not even if you say you're sorry.

Totem
#31 Dec 01 2006 at 1:30 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Id raelly like to dive into this one......But i'm really pushed for time atm

But, with your permission I'd like to cut and paste a reply I made to someone else concerning Global warming. Then if you are still on about it later when Im less busy, Im up for a debate on it!
Quote:


Well ######, it seems we're gonnna differ on this one. i've just spent far too much time on looking at sooo many web pages and articles on this. And where do I find myself now? I'm still totally unconvinced that ozone depletion/ global warming have anything to do with the activities of man.

I've read loads of science from both sides of the argument with the purpose of convincing myself one way or another that there IS something going on. And I've failed. (to convince myself, that is). As far as I can tell, there are and always have been fluctuations in the systems of this planet. Until very recently we have had very little ability to measure these fluctuations. Now that we are becoming able to take meaningful measurements of some of the processes going on around us, we (some ) are busy jumping to conclusions about all sorts of data that may or may not mean anything.

Measuring so called holes in the ozone layer, for 20 or 30 years and finding that they have moved around a bit and seasonaly change density and position, doesn't PROVE anything (not to me anyway, maybe it does to you and lots of others, it would seem). Planet earth has been here for 4.55 billion years and seems to have gotten by just fine without 'us' to fret about her. Why should she suddenly be having all these problems now?

I just don't get it.

I don't think that I'm gonna be able to change your mind and thats not my intention, but there are some things that just don't add up to me.... Scientific American , 9/89 says that man releases about 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmos. per year, or 2.9% of total. Non-human activities (forest fires, volcanoes and the oceans) release about 200 billion tons(97.1%) Co2 is the main culprit (apparently) as a 'greenhouse gas'.

The Earths atmos. is at an average pressure of 14.7 lbs. per square inch.The Earts surface area is roughly 200 million square miles. Weight of atmosphere is about 6 thousand trillion tons. In 1950, content of CO2 was 0.04 %.. by weight wich is about 2400 billion tons. In 1996, the CO2 was 0.06% of the atmosphere or about 3600 billion tons. On these figures, massive as they are, I just can't make the connection between our piddly 6 billion tons and impending global catastrophy.

I would worry about the environment and global warming and pollution and rising sea levels (i AM a surfer, and probably spend 10 to 15 hours a week actually in the sea), but I'd like to think that my finite reserves of worry energy are being directed at the things that really need to be worried about...Nuclear pollution, genuinly avoidable illnesses, such as the impending health and environmental disaster bought on by the western, meat 3 times a day sugar diet and even the loss of habitat availiable for the lesser spotted custard parrot of matabeleland. At least we can, do something about these things. The atmosphere ? Methinks it will look after itself.

with respect....


That was my opinion on it 3 or 4 years ago....

And I've not heard too much to want to change it since.....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#32 Dec 01 2006 at 1:36 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Totem wrote:
/sniffs

I feel cheap and used now! So I'm only good for fun and giggles, eh? I'm not the serious relationship type you take home to mother, eh? Mine is the number scrawled on bathroom stalls that say, "For a good time call Totem!" eh?

867530nyyyynnnnnnee

Don't pout, my Nubian King of Comedy. It's a step above gay-club-hopping-pal, and, as I'm sure you'll confirm, a far one because it's taken in a much larger shoe.

Totem wrote:
Just for that slight I erased a well thought out and footnoted dissertation on The Unifying Theory. And I'm here to tell you it was Nobel Peace prize stuff. And you're never gonna read it. Not even if you say you're sorry.
Damn it! I'm due for a potty break and this OK! is at least two weeks old. Oh well. Only myself to blame and all that.
#33 Dec 01 2006 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
And while this is apropo of nothing, the Chinese food I am eating for lunch rocks. Chicken, flies, & lice rules.

Totem
#34 Dec 01 2006 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
*
58 posts
Quote:
At present, there is no credible evidence in the current global temperature rise of the past 100 years to draw any conclusions that would precipitate any action other than further study. Do you disagree with this, FleaJo2?


Temperature changes in the last 100 years. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html

This is the real problem; we know the atmosphere has more CO2 now than before this is scientifically proven. Our atmosphere is undeniably thicker causing earth to get hotter. The problem most people have with "Global Warming" is why. Personally it doesn't matter weather or not industry or cars are the root cause what does matter is that they are adding to the problem.
The earth is big and it is not going anywhere, a misconception is that we are destroying the earth, this is untrue; we are only destroying our ability to live on it.

If the ice caps melt so what, we lose some land right, it's not like it is the only thing we are not making any more of, we will just huddle closer together. And so what if the Gulf Stream or other ocean currents change the earth has been through what 3, 4 ice ages now. In 10,000+ years earth will start to go back to normal again.

Proven real data says the earth has a thicker atmosphere than ever before and predictions say it is going to get worse, ice caps are already breaking apart at record even devastating speeds, and we are seeing storms breaking every record known including 2006 being the hottest year that we know of. This is not a gradual change in our current conditions, in the last 5 years the CO2 has been spiking on the charts.

We don't have the time to play politics with this, there needs to be a change, and yes it is a risk that reducing emission may not do anything at all, but the risk of not at least trying it when the leading minds of our time suggest it is irresponsible and stupid.
It is time people stop prancing around causes and start embracing the reality of the problem.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

As far as car emissions are concerned so F@*&$* what. Every other sensible country in the world already has higher standards than American does. If you want to give up your puny paycheck to fill that black hole gas tank on your V10 Suburban so that you can haul your fat a$$ around to dine in at the trough of your local area McDonalds then go ahead. I just wish natural selection would hurry up and kill you off early so the responsible ones can start to make a difference.

Am not really sorry about the sarcasm, and about the fat I am just generalizing (People take things to personally, pussies)
#35 Dec 01 2006 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
i thought that dog avatar was disturbing,then i saw Jophiel's.
#36 Dec 01 2006 at 3:16 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
"This is not a gradual change in our current conditions, in the last 5 years the CO2 has been spiking on the charts." --alyxandres

That's patently untrue. CO2 was 20 times greater during the Krakatoa eruption and everything turned out fine.

Totem
#37 Dec 01 2006 at 3:20 PM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Huh.

I can't link to it since it's through my college's journal & publications search, but if you get your hands on a copy of the Feb 18, 2006 Science News you can also read this:
Science News wrote:
Ocean cooling caused by the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 kept sea level worldwide in check well into the 20th century, a new analysis suggests.

When the Indonesian volcano exploded, it hurled immense amounts of ash and other particles into the stratosphere. For up to 2 years, those aerosols blocked about 1 percent of the sunlight that had previously reached Earth, says Peter J. Gleckler, an atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore (Calif.) National Laboratory. The resulting decrease in absorbed radiation caused the upper layers of the oceans to cool and contract. Worldwide, sea level dropped.

Gleckler and his colleagues used modern oceanographic data to confirm the accuracy of six computer models that consider the effects of volcanic aerosols and other factors on Earth's oceans. On average, those models suggest that, between 1955 and 1998, sea level rose about 1.7 centimeters because of the warming of ocean waters, the researchers note in the Feb. 9 Nature.

Applying those models to look farther back in time, the team detected a drop in sea level after the eruption of Krakatoa. In fact, even though the oceans were gradually warming because of changes in Earth's climate, sea level wouldn't have returned to its pre-Krakatoa height until around 1950, says Gleckler.

Thanks to rapidly rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, the heat content of Earth's oceans is increasing much faster today than it did early in the 20th century. The models suggest that the drop in sea level caused by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which lofted a comparable amount of aerosols as Krakatoa did, lasted only a decade or so.


Edited, Dec 1st 2006 6:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Dec 01 2006 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
Just an alternate view of all those noxious greenhouse gasses we are supposed to be combatting


Note that I have no ideaif any of what is on that website is factual or true, but for every study thrown at me that shows we are in the grips of a global meltdown brought on by the bad, wicked, evil gass guzzling West, there are plenty of others ways to interpret the data.

Totem
#39 Dec 01 2006 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem's study wrote:
What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms
Smiley: laugh

Pollution sounds so noble when you put it that way!

Edited, Dec 1st 2006 6:50pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Dec 01 2006 at 3:49 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
"Ocean cooling caused by the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 kept sea level worldwide in check well into the 20th century, a new analysis suggests."

Precisely. And since there is no way to control volcanic activity, it is logical to assume that eventually another one will blow its stack and cause another worldwide cool-down. And really, do you expect First World countries to continue to use fossil fuels regardless of their availability? As stocks go down-- and I'd say that we'll be using other sources of energy long before then --alternate means of procuring energy will become more attractive.

In the meantime, get on China and the old Soviet Bloc to clean up their emissions. The crap they launch into the air is far greater many-fold over what technologically advanced societies like the good ol' U.S. of A. produces.

Totem
#41 Dec 01 2006 at 3:51 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
But that is the truth, FleaJo2. Ask any weed grower-- more CO2 = bigger, better Mary Jane. See? Global warming is something we all can get behind!

Totem
#42 Dec 01 2006 at 3:53 PM Rating: Decent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
And since there is no way to control volcanic activity, it is logical to assume that eventually another one will blow its stack and cause another worldwide cool-down.
You missed the part where it said that an equivalent amount of debris from Pinatubo only affected sea levels for a decade (less than a fifth as long as Krakatoa did) due to increased global temps from greenhouse gasses.

In other words, even your amazing "awesome force of nature" volcanos aren't having the effect that they used to.
Quote:
In the meantime, get on China and the old Soviet Bloc to clean up their emissions.
S'why you elect officials who will do just that Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Dec 01 2006 at 3:56 PM Rating: Decent
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Alright.

Global warming probably won't end in a apocalyptic episode of Captain Planet. I can dig the merits for that argument. My problem is when they take the leap using extremely shoddy science arguing whether current trends in global temperature rise being due to anthropogenic sources.

Arguing that we havent been the leading contributers in the last 50 years leaves you walking into quack town.

Edited, Dec 1st 2006 7:06pm by bodhisattva
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#44 Dec 01 2006 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
This is all about Totem not wanting to give up his Escalade isn't it.
#45 Dec 01 2006 at 4:05 PM Rating: Decent
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
He probably drives a camry.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#46 Dec 01 2006 at 4:28 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
!

Clairavoyance! Can you guess what color it is, bhodi?

Totem
#47 Dec 01 2006 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Omg you guys have some huge post counts.

Edited, Dec 1st 2006 10:05pm by Consilieri
#48REDACTED, Posted: Dec 01 2006 at 7:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Consiglieri,
#49 Dec 01 2006 at 7:54 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rate-ups for karma bombed thread! Hooray!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Dec 01 2006 at 9:28 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
The idea that we should take dramatic legal/political action to fight global warming because we're destroying the long term environment is about as scientifically supported as the idea that we should take dramatic legal/political action to stop violent video games because they make our kids into ninja killers.

Just sayin... If you think one of those things is valid and the other is silly, you might want to re-examine *why*.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Dec 01 2006 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
all environmentalists roll ne druids... its a fact
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 270 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (270)